1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3308 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.04.2025 Ashok Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattha, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of their initial engagement/appointment with all consequential benefits in term of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP/7602/2010, titled as Om Parkash Vs State of H.P & Others, and connected matters, CWP No. 3144 of 2011, titled as Anju Devi Versus State of H.P and Others and CWP No. 3143 of 2011, titled as Manju Devi vs State of H.P and others. II. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest a 9% per annum from the date of their initial appointment to till the date of realization. -2- III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularized the service of the petitioner from the initial date of his appointment along with all consequential benefits as given to Kuldip Chand and similar situated person in Execution Petition No.54/2023, vide officer order dated 01-12-2023 Annexure P-7 as per the judgment of Om Prakash etc.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation (Annexure P-9) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of present petition has already been decided, it is expected from the welfare State to consider and decide the representation of the aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not to sit over the same indefinitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for redressal of their grievances. This is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State. Not taking decision on the representation for months together would not only give rise to unnecessary multiplication of the litigation, but would also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. -3- 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 25th April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)